So you think because you know the definition of assault, it makes you right on whether this "assailant" is justified?
While the statutes defining the legitimate use of force in defense of a person vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of physical force and deadly physical force. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death. Most statutes also include a duty to retreat (notable exceptions include Louisiana and Florida), wherein deadly physical force may only be used if the person acting in self defense is unable to safely retreat. As discussed above, a person is generally not obliged to retreat if in one's own home (for example, a person doesn't have to retreat from the living room to the kitchen, then to the bedroom, then to the bathroom).
git-it-83 said:
What equips you with such power to dictate right from wrong? I doubt you have passed the bar, much less have judicial authority.
After all, it's easy for you to cast your judgment in hindsight and when the damaged property isn't yours.
I'd hate to think of how you'd be walked on if there were a burglary, vandalism, or other misfortune that would fall upon you or one you love. You'd say, "It's OK, I'll just rest in complacency, as vengeance means nothing to my dead heart."
You asked if it was a law, I provided with information which perfectly described his actions as unlawful, nothing more, nothing less. You seem to turn the argument toward me when you don't have an argument: "how do YOU know right from wrong" "i doubt YOU passed the bar" "easy for YOU to cast judgement in hindsight"----please spare me personal attacks and stick to the issue if you would be so kind
OK, you bring up ME and burglary...it's not about me, but I'll bite. If someone breaks into your house, I believe you have all the power in the world to use deadly force. The reason behind this is that they have committed a serious offense in which a more serious offense could take place. That is an issue for another thread though; there are too many variables.
The issue at hand pertains to the rights of owners. If you catch someone putting gum on your car, do you have the RIGHT to beat their head in? If the gum puts you imminent physical harm than I guess you do
You call those personal attacks? Wow, what a Sally. Oh, wait--that's a personal attack. You better take your Premarin, as I sense some emotional and hormonal balance issues with you. 
